In 2000 the European Therapy Studies Institute published a monograph by Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrell: “The APET Model – Patterns in the brain”. I will quote a section of this publication, because it shows how far down the road of fake research pseudo-scientists have slipped to ‘prove’ the ‘need’ to assign someone another gender. Before that, I must advise that anyone can ‘re-assign gender’ because ‘gender’ refers to what a person THINKs, rather than to what he actually IS. But, this is NOT the same as re-assigning the sex one is born with. No-one can do this. It is impossible, because sex is fixed before birth.

Thus, ‘reassignment’ is based not on science but on the whimsicality of absurd individuals (or, in this case, parents) who have weird ideas about who and what they are. I place the blame for this firstly on homosexuals, and secondly on those who allow them to persuade others to undergo surgery. I believe this monograph completely trashes the ‘gender’ argument, so it is important for Christians to read and use it to advantage.

Patterns Seek Completion, P12-on

Very basically, the authors say that the human brain acquires ‘templates’ or ‘givens’ before birth, and that as we grow we continue to add information to those templates, allowing us to become mature and informed adults. (Sounds more like God’s creation to me). They argue that trying to alter these templates can have disastrous results. They go on to give an example of how this works out. I advise you to consider this example whenever you read of someone being given surgery to ‘correct’ a problem of gender (remember, gender is what people foolishly THINK they are. When gender and sex concur – which they must – everything works well).

Also remember that even the most well-known ‘gender reassignment’ cases come to realise how stupid they have been. Today, Bruce Jenner (renamed ‘Caitlin’, though he is still a man after extensive surgery) wants to return to his given sex – male. The ‘gender’ field is littered with tragedy and incomprehensible foolishness.

We begin the quote from the second paragraph. You will not need to buy a copy of the monograph, because everything is included in the quote. I will truncate a few passages when they do not interfere with the flow of argument, and will give a few comments here and there, beginning with ‘Ed’.

(Ed. Just before their illustration the authors refer to pre-schools in the 1970s that banned little boys from playing with plastic guns and ‘boy things’, because boys and girls were being ‘conditioned’ to do so and it was then ‘politically incorrect’. This simple but profound ‘boy-girl’ difference is NOT conditioning, but part of each sex’s ‘templates’, or ‘givens’ – things that are inborn and an essential part of who boys and girls are in reality. One has to work very hard to try to change such templates or ‘givens’, proving just how artificial these attempts are. When tested, researchers discovered that when boys were stopped from being boys, they suffered loss of self-esteem, becoming anxious and miserable. So, some pre-schools reverted back to natural play. But, today, thesamekind of nonsense is being resurrected, and the same anxiety and even worse misery ensues, as adults and even small children are indulged in their fantasies about being in the wrong ‘gender’. The current trend, of ‘identifying’ and ‘treating’ small children who ‘think they are the wrong gender’, is nothing more than abuse of children, who are used in social engineering ideas).

Another illustration of what happens when inner templates are not allowed to seek their fulfilment in the environment is the devastating story of a man reassigned from babyhood to live as a girl...

The procedure of reassigning sex in case of ambiguity (e.g. genetic/hormonal irregularities) was largely established in the 1950s by psychologist Dr John Money... He also invented the terms ‘gender identity’. Tragically, in the process of his work, he became convinced that all babies are psychosexually the same, and that gender identity only emerges as a result of upbringing (Ed. Conditioning. Essentially, this is an evolutionary idea. This is the basis on which modern meddling is based).

(Ed. His primary ideas are fruitless and impossible to prove. No-one can prove what is in a baby’s brain, especially something as specific as being sexually neutral! Money was being unscientific, using guesswork).

His chance to ‘prove’ this occurred when, in 1967, he was approached by a young couple whose baby boy twins had been obliged to undergo circumcision for medical reasons. The operation for one of them, John, had gone horribly wrong, and he had lost his penis.

The couple were persuaded to allow John to undergo surgical castration and the construction of feminine-style external genitalia at the age of 22 months – Dr Money believed (Ed. ‘Believed’ is NOT a scientific or medical term, but another guess) that, after the age of two, gender reassignment was less likely to be a success (Ed. Note how he confused ‘gender’ and ‘sex’). He told them that once the operation had been carried out, and John had become Joan, they must never allow themselves to question their child’s sex, in case doubts entered Joan’s own mind as a result of their attitude.

P13.

Dr Money saw the twins once a year and asked the parents for reports of Joan’s adjustment to her new sex. Mindful of the warning that they must not question their child’s sex, it emerged later, the parents told him anything positive that they noticed and kept their considerable concerns to themselves.

In 1972, Money announced the procedure a resounding success at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This ‘success’ led to a worldwide acceptance in certain circumstances of such sex reassignment in babyhood.

(Ed. This is what all of today’s gender hypotheses are based on – a failed experiment and a false claim. Note that I only refer to ‘Joan’ as ‘she’ because it is used in the text).

The truth about Joan only became known when endocrinologist Dr Milton Diamond of the University of Hawaii, who had always taken issue with Money’s position, managed in 1991 to track down and persuade ‘Joan’ to cooperate in his writing of a medical paper that set the record straight.

Joan by that time had been John again for many years. (A writer, John Colapinto, published the full story). It turned out that Joan had never adjusted to being a girl (Ed. This is the reality of modern gender claims!). From an early age she wanted to play with her twin-brother’s toys and ignored her own. She and her brother were both fascinated to see their father shave, but were totally uninterested in their mother’s make-up. It was noticeable that Joan walked like a boy and sat like a boy, legs apart, hand on knee. At the age of seven she had become convinced that she wasn’t a girl and never had been, regardless of what anyone told her. When she thought of herself as grown up, she visualised a man with a moustache. At 11, her school noted her ‘strongly masculine’ interests. She was variously teased and rejected by other children.

As puberty approached, Joan was adamant, despite much pressure, that she would not have surgery to create a vaginal canal, and only under extreme duress agreed to take female hormones. (Ed. Is this care of children – to apply duress and pressure?). However, her male endocrine system was still intact, and so she had small but definite breasts and padded hips, as well as male gait and gestures and a deep voice. She was treated as a freak (Ed. Which is what current ‘reassigned’ people really are!). At the age of 13 she stopped dressing as a girl and gave in to her instinctive desire to urinate in the standing position. Those attempting to treat her finally accepted the inevitable and her endocrinologist advised her father to tell Joan the truth. When he did, she experienced a gamut of predictably strong emotions, but paramount was relief.(Ed Emphasis my own).She changed her name back to John, took male hormone treatment and had surgery to remove the breasts and reinstate a rudimentary penis.

Colapinto describes how, when asking 31 year old John about his childhood, John’s natural easy tones became angry and aggrieved, and he proceeded to refer to himself as ‘you’ – almost as if he is speaking about someone else altogether. (Ed. This is disassociation, trying to distance himself from what happened. This shows just how harmed he had been as a child). It was torture for John to recall what he terms the ‘psychological warfare’ he had lived with in his mind.

Fortunately, his own story has a happy ending. He met and married a woman who already had three young children. The father had dumped her, and her first priority in a partner was a loving, caring nature. But, the graphic lesson of his experience is a deeply salutary one.

In couple counselling we are now beginning to realise the importance of understanding the differences between male and female templates and how this affects life on all levels. For example, men and women understand and address emotions differently, focus attention differently, may enjoy different types of conversation, express love for their children differently, and are attracted to interests that often seem alien to the opposite sex. While there is much... that is similar between the sexes, the divergences are there for good reason...

The outrageous nature of this case is well known to those in this field of research. So, it is itself outrageous that they ignore what is obvious – men and women are different in so many ways. One cannot simply give hormones and cut someone up to ‘change’ from one sex to another! We are different for a good reason, as we read in the final sentence above. This is evident from both science and scripture. God made us men and women. A VERY small number of people are born with ambiguous sex, but they are so few because they are ‘natural mistakes’ brought about by sin in the population. It is why there is so much illness and inborn maladies. But, we cannot and must not base our ideas on these almost negligible problems of nature.

When a man ‘thinks’ he is really a woman, or a woman ‘thinks’ she is a man, it is THIS that is conditioned, not the inborn fact of two separate sexes. Remember that ‘gender reassignment’ is used to describe operating on the bodies of deluded people, whose ridiculous ideas should have been immediately challenged when they first arose. This is what the monograph was talking about - the imposed sexual horrors of some on individuals who are not challenged.

We must stand firm. The grotesque ideas of medical and other specialists must not be allowed Nazi-style outcomes. The experimentation MUST stop. Unlike John in the story above, many who undergo ‘reassignment’ go on to commit suicide – NOT because society rejects them (which many in society rightly do) but because they have been reassured by specialists who are making fools of their clients and of science, but their own minds KNOW it is all a big mistake.

Christians MUST stand up and object, to point out the danger that so-called ‘specialists’ put on individuals who have been supported in their delusions by false science and medicine. God forbid that we should ever accept what they say as genuine!